Graham County

Graham County, North Carolina — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 8,030 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~49 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~20%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone (not Hispanic/Latino): ~88%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~6%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~3,400
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~79%
• Median household income: ~$46,000
• Persons below poverty level: ~19%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Graham County, NC (population ≈8,100) has an estimated 6,000 email users ages 13+ (about 74% of residents). Age distribution of email users: 13–24: 21% (1,260); 25–44: 28% (1,680); 45–64: 31% (1,860); 65+: 20% (1,200). Gender split among users: 51% female, 49% male.

Digital access: 87% of households have a computer and 67% have a broadband subscription (ACS 2018–2022). Around 17% are smartphone‑only internet households. Broadband adoption and availability trail the North Carolina average, but fixed‑wireless and satellite uptake has risen since 2021, and limited fiber exists in and around Robbinsville, the county’s primary service hub.

Local density/connectivity facts: Population density is roughly 27 residents per square mile, making Graham one of the state’s sparsest counties. Mountainous terrain and extensive public lands complicate tower placement and last‑mile fiber, creating coverage gaps in outlying hollows and ridge lines. Public Wi‑Fi at the library, schools, and municipal buildings is an important access point for residents without reliable home service.

Mobile phone usage in Graham County, North Carolina — 2024–2025 snapshot

Context and scale

• Population base: Approximately 8,000–8,500 residents spread across ~300 square miles, making Graham one of North Carolina’s most rural, lowest-density counties. Terrain is mountainous, heavily forested, and sparsely settled outside Robbinsville and highway corridors.

User estimates

• Unique mobile phone users: 6,000–6,500 residents use a mobile phone of some kind (roughly 75–80% of total residents, higher when counted as a share of those 10+ years old).
• Smartphone users: 5,200–5,600 (about 80–85% of adult residents; lower than North Carolina’s statewide adult rate, which is typically in the mid-80s to high-80s).
• Wireless-only (no landline) households: Approximately 60–65% of adults live in wireless-only households, 8–12 percentage points below the statewide rate. Older age structure and landline/VoIP persistence in DSL-served areas keep the wireless-only share muted.
• Mobile data dependence: 25–35% of households rely on mobile data as a primary or frequent internet source (hotspots, phone tethering), notably above the statewide share in rural and mountain communities due to limited fixed options.
• Prepaid share: Approximately 30–40% of lines are prepaid or MVNO-based—materially higher than the state average—reflecting lower incomes, credit constraints, and coverage-driven carrier switching.

Demographic usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: Smartphone adoption ~95%+, heavy social/video use; high mobility but often price-sensitive plans.
  • 35–64: 85–90% smartphone adoption; frequent hotspot use where home broadband is weak.
  • 65+: 55–65% smartphone adoption—10–20 points below the state—more voice/SMS-centric usage and some continued landline use.
• Income and plan type
  • Lower-income households show higher prepaid/MVNO adoption and device longevity; data caps and deprioritization shape usage patterns (greater Wi‑Fi offload at home, school, and libraries).
• Race/ethnicity
  • American Indian/Alaska Native residents (Snowbird Cherokee community) form a larger share than the North Carolina average. Reported device ownership rates are similar to county averages, but coverage and terrain constraints lead to higher use of Wi‑Fi calling and community hotspots.
• Work and education
  • Remote work and at-home e-learning reliance on mobile hotspots is notably higher than state averages when fixed broadband is unavailable or unreliable.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Radio access
  • LTE is the baseline; coverage clusters along US‑129 (Robbinsville/Tail of the Dragon), NC‑143, NC‑28, and near Fontana/Cheoah lakes.
  • 5G availability is primarily low‑band for wide‑area coverage; mid‑band 5G is limited or absent outside Robbinsville. Practical speeds often resemble strong LTE in many locations.
  • Dead zones persist in hollows, ridge-shadowed roads, and interior forest—materially more common than statewide.
  • Verizon and AT&T generally provide the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile’s low‑band reach exists along main corridors but is patchier off-highway in the mountains.
• Backhaul and resiliency
  • Microwave backhaul remains common due to terrain; fiber backhaul is present but not ubiquitous. Single points of failure mean that storms, fiber cuts, or power outages can knock out multiple sites at once.
  • Seasonal tourism (Tail of the Dragon, lake and forest recreation) causes localized congestion on summer weekends, with voice/SMS reliability typically holding up better than high-throughput data.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Fiber-to-the-premise is limited to select pockets in/near Robbinsville; many areas rely on legacy DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Because fixed broadband availability and performance trail the state average, more households fall back to mobile hotspots for primary access or redundancy.
• Public access and mitigation
  • Libraries, schools, and county facilities function as critical Wi‑Fi anchors. Wi‑Fi calling is an important workaround for indoor coverage gaps.

How Graham County differs from North Carolina overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: 5–8 percentage points below statewide levels, chiefly driven by older age structure and affordability.
• Lower wireless-only share: Adults living in wireless-only households trail the state by roughly 8–12 points due to older users retaining landlines or VoIP where DSL remains.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO usage: 5–15 points above statewide norms, reflecting price sensitivity, credit factors, and carrier-switching in search of usable rural coverage.
• Greater reliance on mobile for home internet: Share of households using phone hotspots or mobile plans as a primary connection is meaningfully higher than the state average because fixed broadband options are scarcer and slower in many tracts.
• More pronounced coverage gaps and 5G limitations: Dead zones and low‑band‑only 5G are notably more common than statewide; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited outside the county seat area.
• Higher seasonal congestion swings: Tourist-driven spikes on key corridors create peak-load conditions uncommon in most counties with similar populations.

Actionable insights

• Investments with outsized impact: Additional towers or small cells on shadowed corridors, fiber backhaul hardening, and selective mid‑band 5G overlays near population clusters would materially improve reliability and capacity.
• Service design: Plans with robust deprioritization thresholds, hotspot allowances, and Wi‑Fi calling support align with local constraints better than ultra‑high‑throughput offerings that depend on dense mid‑band 5G.
• Community access: Sustaining library/school Wi‑Fi, and expanding public Wi‑Fi in Robbinsville and recreation areas, reduces the digital divide for students and older adults where handset data is capped or indoor signal is weak.

Social media usage in Graham County, NC (2025 snapshot)

Baseline and user count

• Population baseline: ~8,000 (2020 Census). Residents age 13+: ~7,000.
• Active social media users: ~5,200 (≈65% of total population; ≈74% of residents 13+).

Most-used platforms (share of residents age 13+; multi-platform use is common)

• YouTube: 78%
• Facebook: 66%
• Instagram: 31%
• TikTok: 26%
• Pinterest: 24%
• Snapchat: 21%
• X (Twitter): 12%
• WhatsApp: 11%
• Reddit: 11%
• LinkedIn: 9%

Age-group reach (share of each age group using each platform)

• Ages 13–17: YouTube 95%, TikTok 70%, Snapchat 75%, Instagram 65%, Facebook 30%.
• Ages 18–29: YouTube 92%, Instagram 75%, TikTok 60%, Snapchat 55%, Facebook 55%.
• Ages 30–49: Facebook 72%, YouTube 85%, Instagram 45%, TikTok 32%, Snapchat 25%, Pinterest 35%.
• Ages 50–64: Facebook 70%, YouTube 75%, Instagram 25%, TikTok 18%, Pinterest 28%.
• Ages 65+: Facebook 62%, YouTube 60%, Instagram 12%, TikTok 8%, Pinterest 18%.

Gender breakdown among social users

• Overall user mix: ~51% female, ~49% male.
• Platform skews: Facebook ~56% female, Pinterest ~75% female, Instagram ~55% female; YouTube ~58% male; Reddit ~70% male; X ~56% male; TikTok ~58% female; Snapchat ~55% female.

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: local groups (buy/sell, yard sales, school and church bulletins), Marketplace, and county service updates dominate daily use.
• YouTube is the go-to for how‑to, outdoor, and motorsports content tied to local interests (hunting/fishing, trail riding, boating on Fontana Lake, Cherohala Skyway/Smokies travel).
• Short‑form video is rising among under‑35s (Reels/TikTok) for events, local food, and small business discovery; cross‑posting to Facebook expands reach.
• Information utility drives spikes: weather, road closures, outages, school notices, and election periods yield the highest engagement.
• Mobile-first consumption: many users rely on cellular data; posts that are short, vertical video, and lightweight to load perform best. Evenings and early mornings show the highest activity.
• Word‑of‑mouth amplification: local shares in Facebook Groups meaningfully outperform paid impressions for community-relevant posts; comments/reviews influence small-business decisions.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are county-level estimates derived by applying recent Pew Research Center (2023–2024) platform adoption rates (with rural adjustments) to Graham County’s age/sex profile from the 2020 Census and recent ACS updates; numbers are rounded to the nearest point and intended as best-available local approximations.